Business Model Hydrogen Fuel and Hydrogen Energies Infrastructures September 2018
Abstract It is clear to any objective observer that in the coming decades – likely by the year 2050 – the use of hydrogen for energy will be a central global phenomenon – facts on the ground demand it, facts under the ground demand it and consumers demand it (the latter being the most important). When a Business Model is driven by consumer demand, the products, as well as the model, must be as responsive as those consumers expect. Hydrogen will be increasingly needed for automobiles, and this is probably the largest application in terms of quantity of gas used, but it is also sorely needed for many other applications; industrial but not only large-scale industrial (the coming decades will also see a large increase in individual manufacturing via printing technologies, as well as greater emphasis on nanotechnologies, and hydrogen is also very important to both of those). However, there are two impediments which must be addressed: scaling up and Green Hydrogen (or at least, significantly “greener”) both of those terms are described below. This article addresses these two central issues, as well as other less central, issues needed to support that effort. The project herein described is an actual project (not theoretical) in process of being built. Caveat: Specific Product names are not used to prevent ethical violations.
Nearly ALL hydrogen produced today in the world is produced by Introduction electricity from a national grid, in other words, the hydrogen production process expels large amounts of CO2. This is classed as “Brown Hydrogen” and is considered significantly of less value than hydrogen produced in a manner which is carbon neutral. Remember what is stated above in the abstract, consumers are driving this market at least as much as are engineering and scientific (i.e., product) needs. Consumers are increasingly demanding Green or Greener hydrogen. If there were no practical way to attain this, one could state that this issue is of no or lesser importance. However, the point of this article is to show that this is NOT the case and that Green Hydrogen can be produced, efficiently, practically and inexpensively, and this Green Hydrogen can be used for the entire hydrogen fuel infrastructure. However, creativity of thought is required. The entire business model must be designed from inception for these goals. There are logistical complexities that need to be addressed intelligently for this system to “The final goal, if you want to be CO2 function economically and practically. In any case, when these logistical emission-free, is to produce hydrogen exigencies are well-addressed, the business benefits are far more than from sources that do not produce CO2” ‘only’ economic, and the financial benefits are as large as the market; as – Giorgio Zoia, Toyota 2017. is shown below [1-35].
Alternative energy exigencies Hydrogen energy is known as one of many energy sources that are called ‘alternative’ because ‘main stream’ energy is generally from fossil fuels – petroleum, natural gas and/or coal. We need to be clear on this appellation. Fossil fuels are mined from the earth. There are myriad problems with this, including geopolitical issues, as well as engineering issues; but no matter how many problems that exist with this source of fuel, humanity has been using them for thousands of years and all of the processes that surround them (e.g., search and exploration, mining/pumping, transporting and etc.) are honed and highly efficient. Hence, fossil fuels, even when pressured artificially with political limitations (such as cartels) are fantastically cheap (we disregard here issues of “fair pricing” – fairness is neither a political nor an engineering term). In parallel with this cost however, fossil fuels are also very dirty in both transportations and usage. Tens of thousands (some sources say, millions) of people sicken and die every year from air, water and ground pollution resulting from fossil fuels [19,24]. Their cost, plentiful distribution and high energy content mean they are not going away in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Many attempts have been made to make a case that there just are not sufficient quantities [8], but reality has proven this to be simply not the case. Withal, and as a result of the costs/benefits of fossil fuels AND alternative fuels, it has become increasing imperative for countries to have at their command a reasonable level of energy security, as a basic component of national security [5,9]. Energy security today means also a certain level of technology, within their culture. In other words, a country that does not command its energy security does not command its future. All “alternative energy” sources are good and beneficial, but all have limitations, and most of these limitations are generally unknown. Fossil fuels also have limitations. However, the difference is, as stated above, that humanity has been utilising fossil fuels for thousands of years and these limitation have been addressed – we are collectively used to them. What that means is that fossil fuels are still being used, and will remain so, but are being augmented by alternative sources of energy [30]. As the sage said, anything done in excess has danger; fossil fuels must be augmented, but the objective need not be total replacement, at this time.
Nuclear The first major national/utility-level attempt at an alternative energy source was nuclear. This was post-World War II. The attempt to utilise nuclear reactors for industrial and energy was quite early in the nuclear industry’s development. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has not, to put it mildly, proven its long-term worth to humanity. As an example of these difficulties, Mr. Obama promised as part of his electioneering platform in 2008 to significantly enhance the nuclear industry in the United States as a long-term replacement for fossil fuels, and particularly coal. Instead of that, he closed the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste storage site and five nuclear-powered electricity generating plants were shuttered during his eight-year tenure, while not a single new nuclear plant came on line or was even fully approved. This highlights two critical issues concerning nuclear energy: A) it creates nuclear waste that is exceedingly difficult and dangerous to control and dispose of safely; and B) alongside a horrible safety reputation in the eyes of the public (which is not totally deserved, though not totally undeserved) the time to register, regulate, build and bring on-line new nuclear-energy electricity plants is exceedingly long, as well as being highly cost prohibitive [12]. Many countries have lately begun processes of nuclear installations. In most cases, this is more an issue of national pride, then actual economic sanity. China for instance, is in process of building a very large number of nuclear energy plants. If one calculates the number of existing nuclear plants and the number of new nuclear plants being built, throughout the world today, and then compares this with known uranium deposits one quite quickly sees that the planet simply does not possess a sufficient quantity of uranium for all those plants – even with massive retirement of nuclear plants in Germany and Japan following disasters. Approving new ones is, at best, a very expensive exercise in futility, if not hubris and folly.
Solar Solar energy sourcing has two types; photovoltaic (PV) and thermal energy [12,13,20]. Both of these energy sources have numerous benefits, but also contain within them numerous problems. Some of these problems can eventually be solved with time, but some of them can never be solved [24]. Solar energy is a superb energy source for many niche applications, and can even be a good source, in certain locales, for general energy needs. However, one needs to be aware that solar energy availability (insolation) does not depend upon how warm a climate is, but only upon availability of direct sunlight [13]. As an example, the nation of Cameroons has a warm climate, but it also has a high level of cloud cover, meaning that the total yearly average insolation at the capitol city is only 4.99 hours per day, making it of borderline value for solar installations. Belize also has only 4.81; Bolivia 3.94; Columbia 3.78; Quito Ecuador has 3.75. These are all countries that are thought of as warm climes. Of course, massive installation of solar in place with cold climes, such as Germany (insolation of 2.98 in Munich) is simply hubris.Note that all this does not differentiate between thermal and PV, because what really matters here is the total amount of solar energy the sun places at the disposal of these geographies. The comment is neither ‘political’ nor biased in any other way – it is observational, quantitative science. If the application needs are minimal, one can simply place another collector panel – if the space permits. In a country like Zimbabwe, for instance, which is land-locked and has limited access to fossil fuels, of Tahiti (Puerto Rico and other island nations) that have ‘easy access’ but fossil fuels’ transport is very costly and prohibitive (and polluting) solar can be a viable option. But Utility-level solar, whether PV or thermal, needs to be given careful consideration; it should NEVER be considered as the ‘only’ viable option and clearly sought. Entire life-cycle costs are a minimal, but insufficient consideration [12].
Recommend
More recommend
